It being bad because it was rushed doesn't make it not bad.
I think there is a difference. Being bad(generally) men's, that the artists failed to do what was expected and didnt have the required skills. The effects being bad because of it being rushed means, that even when the artists had the needed skis they were forced to make it bad to save time. The difference here is who to blame. In the first scenario it was the artists fault in the second the managers.
This. What the hell...
I was surprised at how well the 5 hour version turned out. Definitely not perfect, but very serviceable honestly.
As an absolute layman, I was pretty satisfied with the 5 min version. Not saying it was great at all. It was just astonishing how quickly a professional could essentially mock up an idea.
Yea that was my first thought too ... it was basically VFX story boarding and 5 mins seems like a worthwhile amount of time for that.
Yea, it's interesting. I'm guessing (layman here) that a lot of it has to do with hour the 5hr shot used recorded footage of a miniature of the car. So the impact we see is an actual physical impact.
In the 5 day shot, he went all digital and seemed focused on simulating as accurately as possible the breaking apart of the wall and the car.
I'd bet the physics of the impact was left behind in the 5 day digital simulation and the cheaply acquired accuracy of the physics from miniature was taken for granted, which may just be a common dynamic in modern digital VFX. Not that they do physics and such badly, but don't realise just how much information you're getting "for free" from miniature but physically real models.
Kinda interesting to see a VFX youtube channel get this real about the industry (no doubt on the back of "No CGI is really just invisible CGI", see post here on that series).
And just to get a bit political ... the whole bidding system and the race to the bottom dynamic it's created (comes out in the interview with The Flash VFX supervisor) is a big part of the problem here.
Seems the studios are keeping the VFX firms at arms length from the industry, in the way they probably wish they could with actors. So when we all find ourselves just criticising the VFX of a film, and not blaming the director, producer or studio, it can't be a coincidence right? The system is designed to give the VFX people the least control, lease profit and least credit ... but the most "blame"? When in reality it's higher-level decisions by studios, producers and directors that are likely far more responsible.
You can imagine a world where the VFX firms (or houses or studios) get their own branding power. At the moment ILM and Weta probably have a bit of this, but probably mostly among nerds. It could be a more like what actors have though. Where we all know which firm did which shot, gain an appreciation for their quality and style and look forward to seeing a new film with their work in it. Of course everything they do is beholden to the director and script, so their not truly independent creative agents. But neither are the actors! And we all tend to like talking about the quality of VFX a bunch anyway.
Kinda interesting to see a VFX youtube channel get this real about the industry (no doubt on the back of "No CGI is really just invisible CGI", see [post here on that series](https://lemmy.ml/post/13485455)).
I don’t know about that, Corridor Crew has been keeping it real on the realities of the VFX business for years now.
Probably fair, but to the point of interviewing an insider about how the system isn’t working and how unions are probably necessary?
I’d bet, without knowing, that there’s no way unions would have even been mentioned on the show until the past year or two.
Genuinely curious to know.
Who blames the VFX people? Obviously the director etc. has the last word. If those people let is pass it is their responsibility. Regardless of that the VFX people did. Same with actors and how they behave on set. If they enable it they are (part of) the issue.
I'd say many would criticise the VFX directly. Maybe not the VFX artists, as they're mostly invisible. But I don't feel like the directors and producers naturally come to people's minds as being responsible.
lord of the rings showed how it was done but then no one did it as well since.
I remember freelance designer friends complaining of the same issues years ago. Lack of time, clueless managers making last minute changes, and fixed-bid projects with unrealistic deadlines.
The same issue has been true in the broader tech industry. One solution is if you're bidding on a fixed contract, to put strict cost control measures and limit the number of revisions.
Another is to move into specializations that they can't get elsewhere. Be the place you go for water effects, or amazing space travel, or realistic humans. If you're relying on After Effects, or Houdini, or Maya, anyone who has access to the same tools becomes your competitor. But create plugins that nobody else has and makes you special and you stand out.
Once everyone figured out how to make a website, it became a commodity and it was a race to the bottom. Those who made it figured out how to move up the food chain.
As far as the broader tech industry, you need to do a balancing act between specialization and general skills. Never know when the whims of a megacorp will suddenly kill the specific niche you've built a nice home in, so make sure your skills are general enough to be transferable.
Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.
A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome
Related communities:
Show communities:
Discussion communities:
RULES
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.
2024 discussion threads